Bullard v. Garfield County Detention Facility et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 of Magistrate Bernard Jones and denies plaintiff's motion 13 and dismisses this action without prejudice to refiling. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 10/19/2015. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SAMMY CARL BULLARD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GARFIELD COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-15-798-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Sammy Carl Bullard., appearing pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), the matter was referred to
Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones, who has recommended that the action be dismissed
without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the initial partial filing fee of $1.00.
The magistrate judge had granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but
advised plaintiff that he would be required to pay the $350 filing fee, beginning with an
initial partial payment of $1.00 by August 22, 2015. Plaintiff was told that if he failed to pay
the initial fee or show good cause in writing for not doing so, the action would be subject to
dismissal without prejudice. By order dated August 28, 2015, the court sua sponte extended
the deadline for payment of the initial partial filing fee to September 11, 2015, and again
warned plaintiff that failure to comply with the order could result in dismissal of the action.
Instead of complying with the magistrate judge’s prior orders by making the initial
partial payment, requesting an extension of time within which to pay or demonstrating good
cause for failure to pay, the plaintiff, on September 14, 2015, filed a motion stating that he

did not have or anticipate having “$1.00 any time soon.” Doc. #13. Plaintiff asked the court
to waive the filing fee.

The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff’s motion was

insufficient to excuse the filing fee requirement as he offered no explanation why funds were
no longer available to him or otherwise attempted to demonstrate good cause for not
complying with the court’s prior orders.
The court agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion and further notes that
plaintiff, by failing to object to the Report and Recommendation, waived his right to
appellate review of the issues it addressed. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73
F.3d 1057, 1059-60 (10th Cir. 1996); see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, the court
ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jones’s Report and Recommendation, DENIES plaintiff’s
motion [Doc. #13] and DISMISSES this action without prejudice to refiling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 19th day of October, 2015.

2